Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scholarly Squad Debunks Biblical 'Discoveries'

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by -Blackout-

Originally posted by AndersonLee
Evidence is over rated .


Evidence of what? I have not seen any evidence that the Ark was found.

We'll never find it. Only gullible religious fanatics will believe in stuff like this.


And only people who don't want to believe the Ark is real will not believe even if it was found. You can't find what you don't want to see.


Funny since I do not want to believe in cancer but...

Well, you can see where I am going with that.


Funny because that's not the context in which I was referring to. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Please pay attention next time.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Newspaper clipping about grand opening of Noah's Arc

"I'm uplifting the local economy with this giant fake arc," claims crazy arc-building company exec. paraphrasing



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
this just seems to be a classic tale of using the ark as a way to collect funding for whatever it is they want to dig up...it for some reason is what all these groups want to hear that the ark is finally found but little do they know its just another scam to get money out of them...



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I don't care if they've found the Ark or not..

What bugs me is that just because one part of the story is true, people start deeming the whole shebang to be the real deal.

If you're going to prove something as huge as GOD and the BIBLE. I would like to see a lot more verifications.

If the ark is found, then that's cool. That means the story of the Ark may be real. Does that confirm the existence of God? No.

I can equally say, "I am a member of ATS and I live in Canada."

I'd have to prove both to make that statement true, not just one or the other.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
So what the OP is saying is that it's not right to formulate a theory, then search out evidence to support or discount the theory.

How would some people who go "the bible is true" (theory) If the bible is true the ark would exist, lets go find it. How is that not normal?

I mean... look at the global warming people... They faked SO SO much, and it's about money and control. They went "the globe is warming cuz of man" (theory) and if that is true we can find warming trends.

If they faked the ark, then guess what... they are just as good of scientists as the global warming people.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Well for a Topic titled Scholarly Squad Debunks Biblical 'Discoveries' it sure falls short of the mark.

I had expected some evidence to suggest some Biblical Discoveries of one type or another where false, but all that is offered is hearsay and dismissive remarks based on just perspective alone.

It is always nice to have opinion, and it is always nice to offer it as such, but nothing presented within the Post offers anything other than supposition and actually could be deemed as slander, debasing one's charater solely based upon speculation of someones intent.

It is also nice to see the sheep baaaaing in with their uniformed voices of conformity praising the efforts of narrow minded scholars who seem to be presenting themselves as Judge, Juror and Information Minister on all things.

It's just funny how Orwell had things figured out. Thought control enmasse.

Ciao

Shane

P.S. Hey Pablos

Did you ever hear of Heinrich Schliemann? Went out and found exactly what he was looking for. Didn't he? The location inwhich the City of Troy would be located. I suspect he may even have found Troy itself, although their is valid debate with evidence to support it that he only found it's location. Nonetheless, he did find exactly what he was looking for.






If you're done playing the self-righteous card, perhaps you can now be drawn back down to reality and common sense. The article says that two former members of the "Noah's Ark Ministries International" have come forward and claimed that they forged the evidence. That is news. Scientifically speaking, the wood would have decomposed centuries ago. That is simply fact. Historically speaking, it would have been scavenged for parts by various peoples who weren't aware of its significance or didn't care.

The article is a mixture of new events, scientific fact, and common sense. It's intellectually dishonest of you to try and portray it as anything different.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Son of Will]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Somewhat misleading post I'm afraid.

While you are correct, Heinrich Schliemann is creditted with finding Troy, you 'neglected' to mention that he took over an exisiting dig that had been worked on for 20 years by Frank Calvert.



Based on the work of a British archaeologist, Frank Calvert, who had been excavating the site in Turkey for over 20 years, Schliemann decided that Hissarlik was, in fact, the site of Troy.


Source

Schliemann did not wake up one day and decide to go searching for Troy; he took over the excavation of an exisiting site and proved that it was Troy.

There is a difference.

It's funny, if this had been any other group looking for any other type of artifact there would be red flags concerning the DVD that you can buy and the theme park you can go to. 'Shameless Promotion' or 'Scam' come to mind immediately, 'Preying on the gullible' is close behind.

My question in these matters is always the same; Why can some things be taken on faith as real, but science is required for others?

Science is ignored or demanded, it just depends on the agenda.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by {davinci}]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
In the 19th Century some atheist English scientists climbed Ararat to prove the Ark wasn't there. Unfortunately for them they found it - and did they declare their find like true impartial empiricists? Course not , they took an oath of silence, which held until two of them ended up making deathbed disclosures.

Why should the religious convictions of the explorers necessarily invalidate their claim? While I am an atheist, I also think there have been unexplained global cataclysms in the past and recognise that not all Christians are fraudulent propagandists.
Price does not explain how the hoaxers managed to get all those beams up there when there are no roads and then construct the thing right under the noses of the Turkish army, nor how much they have been paid to guarantee their silence for the rest of their lives on top of their reward for doing the work.
Were internet DVD sales really going to prove that lucrative, even before the hoax claim?
It should be borne in mind that the explorers are encouraging UNESCO to get involved, which would surely undermine any false claims.
This is the first recent expedition to have looked in the location where scores of local inhabitants have always said the Ark lay, along with all the other witnesses from the Czar's expedition back to Alexander the Great.
Various accounts have described more than one structural object up there and some have said it has one end missing: perhaps this is what they have found, buried under debris that rolled down the slope with it.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by -Blackout-

Originally posted by AndersonLee
Evidence is over rated .


Evidence of what? I have not seen any evidence that the Ark was found.

We'll never find it. Only gullible religious fanatics will believe in stuff like this.


And only people who don't want to believe the Ark is real will not believe even if it was found. You can't find what you don't want to see.


When an ark that is large enough to contain a pair of every land-dwelling species... 33 million in all... I'll believe it.

When the boats that allowed koalas (that are found only in Australia), to sail to Asia carrying the eucalyptus leaves that make up their entire diet... I'll believe it.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by Angus123]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Angus123]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pablos
reply to post by -Blackout-
 


I cannot agree more. I am over the "science" of people finding exactly what they are looking for right away. It just doesn't seem to work that way with any other field of archaeology. Take a paleontologist. They don't just go and look for a tyrannosaur and find one. Often they look for a tyrannosaur and find a rare plant fossil, or a bird or even nothing. It would be much more believable if this were the case. If they went looking for ancient stone ruins and stumbled onto Noah's Ark it might have some credence. It is all such a shame really, with what that kind of research money could help discover in that field. Even in biblical archaeology. The art itself does have merit at least to help discover better what life was like at the time, but has sadly become duplicit in the bigger con.

Great write up cheers._javascript:icon('
')


I studied paleontology this year, and it's usually even more obscure than that, especially in reference to dinos.
You may find a random leg bone, some teeth, and maybe part of a vertebrae...and then the real work begins.
Only in "biblical archeology" (what a farce to begin with) does the process work backwards:"let's go looking for the ark...Aha! Here it is!"

and the worst part is many many people take these frauds seriously.




[edit on 2-5-2010 by makinho21]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by -Blackout-
 


Have you ever thought that maybe we where not meant to find those things? Or do you jump to conclusions like every other person on this website.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
While I would like to hear any evidence against the claim that these archaeologists found Noah's Ark, this sudden 'confession' of two 'former' members sounds a bit fishy to me. I don't know about you, but I don't simply buy into it since we don't know if it's a credible source or not. For all we know it could be conspirators somehow trying to prove this find is false, when it could be true. You are going to need evidence to prove against the claim. For years, the locals and Scriptures have said of the Ark to be located in the Mountains of Ararat. The claim that the wooden beams and etc., have been set up just doesn't seem plausible to me. It would take an impossible effort to manage getting all these wooden beams, rooms, into an area inside ice 4,000 meters above sea level. I really don't think a small organization like this can set this up. There is no logic to it either, Christians are called not to false witness or lie.. so basically it would be a major contradiction and sin if they set this up. I'm not trying to be biased in any way, as it seems it might be. I'm simply open minded here, skeptical of the find... yet I think your statement that two 'former members' confessed to this, just doesn't seem like evidence to me. As for the wood, I really don't think it's coincidence that they find '4,800' year old wood lying there... If wood, preserved in the ice, without the exposure of erosion and air... is able to withstand any type major damage (plus the fact that it's 4,000 meters above sea level). Remember 'Otzi the Ice-man'? Scientists said he was preserved in the ice for more than 5,300 years.. yet they could even find the last food he ate 8 hours before his death in his intestines. Why then, couldn't wood survive this many years preserved in ice? As for now, I'm leaning towards the claim that Noah's Ark was found in Turkey. I might lean away, if I get credible, non-fraudulent, and undeniable evidence that these claims are false. Just using science and logic here.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigfoot73
 


I have always been curious as to why the government has made the site off limits.

The last I had heard is that they had actually extended the 'no trespassing' area to keep people even farther away. Add to that the fact that any time groups are allowed near the area it's to the 'B' site where there is evidence to show that a boat may have decomposed there (iron residue in the soil in a pattern that can be seen as nails in a hull).

People are never given acces to the actual spot where something was supposedly found in the ice.

Having followed this story since I was a child I feel that there is alot being said by the actions taken to prevent access to investigate either way. I have no speculation as to what might be there (or was there...I read a long time ago about the military possiblly bombing the area). Personally I don't think the issue is solely what is buried in the snow and ice, I think the issue is also how long has it been buried there.

I am not a believer, so the idea of it actually being Noah's Ark is fantasy for me. That having been said, I believe the intrest in that area is justified: there is/was something there, something that shouldn't be. The only thing more inconvenient then finding Noah's Ark is to have it carbon dated to a time when both science and religion say is impossible.

Perhaps in this light religion and science are working together to prevent the disclosure of an object that niether wants to discuss.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by {davinci}]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by people=oooo
 




Have you ever thought that maybe we where not meant to find those things?


My question is why are we not meant to find it?

If for a moment I accept that the bible story is correct then why would GOD not want it to be found? Furthermore, if that was GOD's will then why was it not destroyed completely when the need for it had passed?

I have stated many times in many threads that I am a believer that there is more to the history of our species then we are aware. Likewise I do believe that much of this history is known to some and deliberately hidden from the rest.

If this is Noah's Ark (or even the chance that it might be) then the church should be pushing for the site to be excavated. Curiously the church has always refused to allow proof to be provided; they always prefer to say that the belief is more important than facts.

What if the the reason for that is because the facts point to something beyond the belief? I'm not trying to bash religion and I'm not trying to say that artifacts would be exposed as fakes. I think the reason for the church's position is that they know what the truth is and are desperately trying to keep the rest of us in the dark.

There are signs that human society stretches back much farther than it is supposed to. If something was preserved on the top of a mountatin that would prove a different version of history there would be more reason to cover it up then if it proved the existence of GOD.

Truth cuts both ways; the truth about this object may be far beyond what anyone expects.



[edit on 3-5-2010 by {davinci}]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
It is also nice to see the sheep baaaaing in with their uniformed voices of conformity praising the efforts of narrow minded scholars who seem to be presenting themselves as Judge, Juror and Information Minister on all things.

It's just funny how Orwell had things figured out. Thought control enmasse.


Hmm...you know what that post of yours got me thinking of?
"I am thy shepard, you are my herd" or "Lamb of God".
The "baaaaing" is what I hear on those rare (dreaded) occasions when I visit church.

Thought control (=organized religion...eeh, maybe?)

Narrow minded scholars are way better than those who blame and explain everything by some book that is more or less proven inaccurate.

Geez, talk about shooting oneself in the foot!



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
There's also how what appeared to be the final proof of the shroud of Turin being a fraud was followed by months of the media pushing it as a genuine relic like never before. It's still going on, even. I find myself questioning the motives of the new Coast to Coast because of it, as George Noory and Ian Punnet have added their voices to the effort. Tonights episode just finished talking about it, and it's become a regular feature.

Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church is starting to feel its grip on people slipping, as more begin to question their version of Christ and certain other things, not to mention the sex abuse scandals, and they're hoping these old gimmicks will serve to enforce their authority.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
my views on ` Noahs Ark ` are irrelevant to this thread

but i will say [ and dont take this as a defence of the noahs ark evangalical mission ] , using the old canard :

a special interest group with a specific mission statement finding the ark is just too convenient and highly unlikley [ paraphrased ]

is simply assanine

by that logic - dr robert ballard and his team should never have relocated the tinanic



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Honestly by reading all that all I see are archeologists arguing the authenticity of allegedly discoveries. Not a debunk.

In my opinion the problem is that both sides have extremes with their own "extremists" and most often than not are closed to accepting what they are not ready to.

Anyway... I still don't understand why religious "extremists" are still searching for evidences to prove their own religions. That for me goes completely against the the concept of faith.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Mate i have heard of Heinrich Shleimann. I actually thought about including him as another example of bad archaeology. I don't think he found troy. Troy was a port city, he found a city 8 miles inland. He found a city and plundered it rotten, ripping of everyone in his path. He did not find troy. Even if he did he is an example of why amateurs should leave this field alone or at least get some real help. As he "found troy" he concluded that the entire legend must have been one hundred percent accurate. Pure bumpkinism!



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
As soon as I saw a friend of mine put this story up on Facebook last week, I instantly knew it was going to turn out to be a dud. One of the biggest tips to me was the phrase "Chinese Evangelicals", but that may just be me.

I don't understand why so many people expect to find Noah's Ark. I do believe that Noah existed and that he had a massive boat. That said, the boat was made out of wood. Why do so many people think that a wooden boat is going to have survived this long? It was wood; wood decomposes! This isn't tough to understand.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join